Comments on: Big Changes for Internet Commerce Association

By: Andrew Allemann

Andrew Allemann — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:23:14 +0000

@ Steve Cheatham – contact Jeremiah. I think the new organization will basically be that — Phil (hopefully) will do the lobbying, and there will be no member support. Oversee, TCI, Sedo, et all will continue to fund it, and Sedo will continue to devote lots of time gratis (to the extent that it can).

By: Steve Cheatham

Steve Cheatham — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:12:07 +0000

I first suspected that it was kind of a front for folks that were doing bad things. Make it look like they were working within some industry self regulation, ethics, and lobbying.

Then I saw what Phil was up to.

Phil worked hard for the organization and I would fund him if he would just keep doing his thing. I can live with no member support if he will just keep his legal op[eration going.

We need a budget and goals and not much else. Except Phil.

The organization simply had no member support infrastructure. That includes updating web site and keeping everyone informed.

Sometimes things don’t work out the first time but let’s get it together and try again.
Steve C

By: Sharon Hayes

Sharon Hayes — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:47:03 +0000

I’m not surprised at all to see this organization fold. One of the biggest issues I saw was their pricing structure for members being based on overall revenue. If your business is only in domains, that makes sense. But for everyone else – there was no logic. It’s no surprise that they had funding issues.

Like JP, I also contacted them many times – never receiving a response.

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:43:19 +0000

I’m not surprised.

Not by the fact that they’re shutting down, nor by the fact that the small domainer didn’t trust them.

Considering their main sponsor was oversee / snapnames and we know how they shafted everyone. For all its claims on ethics, did the ICA question snap once on the issue?

By: Kevin Ohashi

Kevin Ohashi — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:39:37 +0000

I don’t find it surprising honestly. The bigger guys wanting little guys to subsidize what they benefit from the most is probably the biggest problem (imo). They wanted grassroots but there was very little transparency to a wider audience in general. It was/is a few big players trying to solicit money from everyone else to help cover their costs. That doesn’t mean I don’t approve of what they are doing (in spirit and in practice) but I can easily see why so many people are distrustful. It’s a bit tiresome to hear someone who has made millions in this business preaching about how it effects everyone when it probably hurts the biggest guys the hardest. If I had enough skin in this game like these big companies, at some point it would just make sense to hire your own or simply just work with the big industry players (I am guessing this is what might come of this new organizational form?). From a business standpoint, it simply makes more sense. Sure, grassroots is great, but grassroots isn’t going to pay the bills in this industry.

By: steve cheatham

steve cheatham — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 02:29:03 +0000

OK. Let’s get it moving.

By: jp

jp — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:04:37 +0000

I had joined, and had sent them several messages using their internal messaging system, asking some questions and offering to help additionally and I never recieved a response. As many positive thins as they did perhaps they did not have their sh!t together as an organization. This was months ago too